refund_escrow

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the caller restriction, the required DEPLOYER_PRIVATE_KEY env var, and the outcome (refunding funds to buyer). It does not cover failure states or lifecycle prerequisites, but the essential behavioral context is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence provides a distinct, necessary piece of information: the action, the usage condition, and the environment requirement.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple with one parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers purpose, usage trigger, user restriction, and environment variable. Minor gaps exist around potential state prerequisites (e.g., whether a dispute must be active), but overall it is sufficient for confident invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% since the single required parameter deal_id is documented as 'Deal ID to refund'. The tool description adds context about refunding to buyer, but this is largely consistent with the schema and does not provide substantial additional parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Refund escrowed funds'), the target ('back to the buyer'), and the triggering condition ('when the seller fails to deliver'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like release_escrow (pay seller) and dispute_escrow (open dispute).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when the seller fails to deliver') and who can call it ('Only the buyer can call this'). It does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is clear enough for tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.